MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generation of high-intensity ultra-short optical pulses: 2018 Nobel Prize Winners in Physics Gerard Mourou and Donna Strickland

2021· article· en· W3175860080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vyacheslav M. Tyutyunnik

Bibliographic record

VenueImage Journal of Advanced Materials and Technologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLaser-Matter Interactions and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChirped pulse amplificationLaserPulse (music)PhysicsOpticsLaser scienceEngineering physicsUltrashort pulse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early 1980s, French physicist G. Mourou and his Canadian collaborator D. Strickland solved the problem of power drop by dispersing in time and space the processes of amplification and compression: a method of obtaining super-powerful chirped laser pulses (CPA – chirped pulse amplification). The paper presents brief biographical references to Mourou and Strickland. The 2018 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded “for groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics”: Artur Isidorovich Ashkin (Ashkinazi, born 02.09.1922, USA), half of the prize “for the optical tweezers and their application to biological systems”; Gerard Albert Mourou and Donna Theo Strickland (became the third woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics) (quarterly premium) “for their method of generating high-intensity, ultra-short optical pulses”. Since that time all lasers have been built on a new principle: after the amplifiers place a compressor from diffraction bars. Instead of simply amplifying the pulse, it is first spread out on spectral components spread over time, then they are amplified separately, then again assembled into a single pulse. At each point in time, only a fraction of the pulse is amplified, not the entire pulse, allowing for a much higher peak intensity of laser light flow.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueImage Journal of Advanced Materials and TechnologiesSame topicLaser-Matter Interactions and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207